[2003] QCA 251
COURT OF APPEAL
de JERSEY CJ
FRYBERG J
ATKINSON J
CA No 421 of 2002
THE QUEEN
v.
| CRAIG PHILLIP WILCOX | (Appellant) |
| BRISBANE ..DATE 13/06/2003 | |
| ORDER 13062003 D.1 T01/ECE01 M/T COA118/2003 |
1
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The appeal will be struck out.
-----
10
20
30
40
50
ORDER
2 60
Details
- AGLC
- R v Wilcox [2003] QCA 251
- Case
- [2003] QCA 251
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal in this case heard an appeal brought by Craig Phillip Wilcox, who was convicted of various charges including dangerous driving occasioning death, and was sentenced to imprisonment. The appeal was struck out by the Court, which found that Wilcox had not demonstrated that there was an error in the proceedings that would warrant an appeal. The Crown, represented by the Queen, sought to uphold the conviction and sentence imposed on Wilcox.
The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether there was any error in the proceedings that would warrant an appeal, and whether the sentence imposed on Wilcox was appropriate. The Court considered the arguments put forward by Wilcox and found that he had not demonstrated any errors that would warrant an appeal. The Court also found that the sentence imposed on Wilcox was appropriate and within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences of which he was convicted.
The Court of Appeal found that the proceedings before the trial court were conducted properly and that there were no errors that would warrant an appeal. The Court also found that the sentence imposed on Wilcox was appropriate and within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences of which he was convicted. The Court noted that Wilcox had a history of driving offences and had caused the death of another person while driving dangerously, which warranted a significant sentence.
The Court of Appeal struck out the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on Wilcox. The Court found that there were no errors in the proceedings that would warrant an appeal and that the sentence imposed on Wilcox was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence remained in place.
The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether there was any error in the proceedings that would warrant an appeal, and whether the sentence imposed on Wilcox was appropriate. The Court considered the arguments put forward by Wilcox and found that he had not demonstrated any errors that would warrant an appeal. The Court also found that the sentence imposed on Wilcox was appropriate and within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences of which he was convicted.
The Court of Appeal found that the proceedings before the trial court were conducted properly and that there were no errors that would warrant an appeal. The Court also found that the sentence imposed on Wilcox was appropriate and within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences of which he was convicted. The Court noted that Wilcox had a history of driving offences and had caused the death of another person while driving dangerously, which warranted a significant sentence.
The Court of Appeal struck out the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on Wilcox. The Court found that there were no errors in the proceedings that would warrant an appeal and that the sentence imposed on Wilcox was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence remained in place.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.